It's Getting Hot In Here: 2012 Hottest Year On Record

2012 was a historic year for extreme weather that included drought, wildfires, hurricanes and storms. But, as NOAA reported yesterday, 2012 marked the warmest year on record for the contiguous United States. The average temperature for 2012 was 55.3°F, 3.2°F above the 20th century average, and 1.0°F above 1998, the previous warmest year. Rainfall was dismal also at 26.57 inches, 2.57 inches below average, making it the 15th driest year on record for the nation. NOAA also adds that the U.S. Climate Extremes Index indicated that 2012 was the second most extreme year on record for the nation, nearly twice the average value and second only to 1998. 2012 saw 11 disasters that reached the $1 billion threshold in losses. Climate Central also confirms that fully two-thirds of the lower 48 states recorded their first-, second- or third-hottest years, and 43 states had one of their top 10 warmest years ever recorded. Globally, 2012 appears to be the eight warmest on record.

“Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.“

“At least since 1989, Triton has been undergoing a period of global warming. Percentage-wise, it’s a very large increase,” said Elliot, professor of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences and director of the Wallace Astrophysical Observatory. The 5 percent increase on the absolute temperature scale from about minus-392 degrees Fahrenheit to about minus-389 degrees Fahrenheit would be like the Earth experiencing a jump of about 22 degrees Fahrenheit.”

So there is Global Warming on at least 4 other bodies in our Solar System that co-insides with the recent warming on Earth. Doesn’t this point strongly towards the Sun or some other Cosmic force as the cause?

“Why is the albedo of Venus important? When the albedo is at 0.80, the Global Warming Theory falls apart. . .

The carbon dioxide levels on Earth have risen from approximately 0.028% to 0.036% in the last few decades. It is a major stretch to compare this with Venus at a 96.500% carbon dioxide level and promote an uncontrollable runaway condition. Earth in its early history, 385 million years ago, had an atmosphere with 10 times the present carbon dioxide levels. Those elevated levels did not produce runaway global warming then, so why should we theorize that it would today?”

Pre-conceived agendas and a scorched earth policy of accusing any critics of complicity with Big Oil or the Republican Party impedes the scientific process. Likening people who do not agree with doomsday Anthropogenic Global Warming theories to Holocaust Deniers does not get us closer to the truth. In Science, when did “Skeptic” become such a bad word?

“The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

That leveling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.

In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulfuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.”

“But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.”

The Earth's climate is too complicated for us to establish clear causation for temperature increases using current technology, but our industry will eventually kill everyone, whether through stripping arable land until there's no food, or through poisoning fresh water and rainfall, or some other unforeseen consequence of our technological society.

I don't think you can fairly disqualify an idea just because liberals are behind it.

"I don't think you can fairly disqualify an idea just because liberals are behind it."

You can't... but rest assured they haven't pondered too deeply about it. That is, what's actually causing the problem and what solutions (if any) and sacrifices would be necessary to correct the problem.

“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” - Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” - Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” - Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” - Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor

Concerning your last three quotes, are any of these individuals climate scientists involved with the assessment of scientific journals and their related articles? Do you perceive that opinions are science especially opinions of non-scientists? A great book called Idiot America expounds on the war on expertise, by none other than well......idiots. If everybody thinks their an expert than virtually no-one is. Flakmeister is asking people to think and analyze for themselves, scoffing and mocking and ludricous assertions did not bring us cars, planes, computers or polymers. Science did, and people's ability to use and apply science by educating themselves in the facts, might there be a lesson or two for you in there.

Big government and big corporations lie about everything and every subject. Your argument means nothing. Stick to the evidence and the science. Are you saying the UN is the only vested interest here? Big energy can only move presidents and wars.

"only" was sarcastic. Let's see peak oil, the wars that result, the effects of burning it and reasons for skewing the evidence and motivations are in the interest of both players. Like debt and the crazy criminal financial system, both players need each other more than ever to keep moving forward. If you think the puppet show does not work in both directions, you're no Jim Henson

I suppose you believe that because you are too ignorant to understand the science? Because otherwise you could point to credible evidence to suggest that GW is wrong... And since you cannot perform the latter we are left with the the conclusion that you are a simplistic fool that that is incapable of grasping the concept and have no credibility on the matter...

I've recently given up on thinking these people are simple fools. I'm moving toward the dark side and thinking now they are here specifically to spread propaganda. The level of denial and hysteria is too comical to be anything but a deliberate theatre of the strange.

I'm not entirely sure what I think about that. But I think it's creepy, mostly.

Freud posited two basic drives, eros and thanatos. So much for lovers . . . as the unhappily married women who are the bread and butter of psychotherapy practices so monotomously complain, they are not the guys who make the money and run the show.

ahh, if only those "unhappily married women" would unpack the baggage of their adopted labels, they might find themselves free to choose otherwise. . .

but like the scientists who can only get attention publishing what funding pays for, unhappy + marriage + gender role-playing (works for "men" too) is a booming business to unravel, whether on the psych couch or the lawyer's courts.

Maybe you took your social science classes too seriously. I know you're probably a young smart guy who did well in school. Those are the hardest to convince because they learned the misinformation too well. It's hard to admit to themselves that maybe what they learned is wrong. You'll get over it.

There's quite a few folks with fancy letters after their name. We deal with that in court every day. It really depends on what they do, who pays them and whether they've done anything with the evidence

Climate predictions are statistical mathematics based on climate science. Mathematics is not a science, but it is a useful tool.

Predictions are possibilites. like the possibility that you will end up with lung cancer if you smoke a lot of cigarettes. Maybe you will and maybe you won't. Maybe you'll give up smoking in the off-chance it will save you from dying early and painfully of lung cancer. Lots of people gave up smoking on the probability alone because the likely outcome of cancer was far more horrific than the minimal pleasure of smoking.

Maybe you wouldn't and didn't. Maybe you never smoked.

Nobody cares what you think about it either way. Or what you do. Everyone knows the risks and does what they think is correct for themselves.

AGW is a money, influence, political power issue. Just read the Climategate Emails that exposed all the fraud in the AGW fanaticsm and you will see the believers are nothing more than religious zealots clinging to their "scientific" religion that cannot be proven with any repeatable Scientific Method. What's even more ridiculous is that these same so called "scientists" that believe in AGW also believe in evolution, yet cannot seem to understand how that same evolution that only results in higher level life, is somehow threatened by the very higher order life (humans) that evolution created. Their circular logic is even a greater affront to any scientific method that they choose to either ignore or falsify.

From the first link, I took in the maximum amount of data available from GISTEMP, from what I assume is 1880 to what I assume is 2012 (not marked very well on the chart). What I see is an increase of ~0.9 degrees C from 1880 to present.

Looking from 1990 to present, though it shows an upward sloping trend, the start and end temperature is only different by about 0.1 degrees, though the number from 1990 is at the top of a peak, while 2012 (?) is at the bottom of a trough.

Very interesting is the trend since 1970. There seems to be a clear change that happens right there. Of course, the time period right around 1970 sets off alarms for anyone who is knowledgeable about the history of gold as money. Something strange seems to be going on there.

Do you have any similar data sets on CO2 emissions? Did those also spike around that time?

I certainly am not basing my views on majority opinion among posters - most of whom could not define "isobar". I am convinced that evidence reveals the climate is changing rapidly and this is the key. It is not the change but the rapidity of change that is troubling. (Yes, the sun is warming but this is a multi-billion year process - not 100 years.)

The author of "Physics for the Future Presidents" agrees with you - temps have risen 1 degree C since 1900 and there is a 90% chance that at least half of this is man-made. This seems reasonable since the Earth is a close system and heat released through fossil fuels has nowhere to go. In the end, technology will save us through efficiency and new energies.

"This seems reasonable since the Earth is a close system and heat released through fossil fuels has nowhere to go."

Heat is lost to space, if it is not trapped. That is the entire argument for AGW.

"In the end, technology will save us through efficiency and new energies. "

Since human nature will never change, the only thing that has over history is technology, so hopefully we can develop some kind of solution. I doubt efficiency will be the solution, what with Jevons Paradox and all.

The Jevons paradox has been used to argue that energy conservation is futile, as increased efficiency may increase fuel use. Nevertheless, increased efficiency can improve material living standards. Further, fuel use declines if increased efficiency is coupled with a green tax or other conservation policies that keep the cost of use the same (or higher).[3] As the Jevons paradox applies only to technological improvements that increase fuel efficiency, policies that impose conservation standards and increase costs do not display the paradox.

So just who is buying off the guys at NOAA or for that matter the university based researchers?

Well, obviously people with *money*and*motives* are buying off the researchers.

At the confab, European Chairman of the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberger and chairman of British Petroleum Peter Sutherland, gave a speech to his cohorts in which he issued a "Universal battle cry arose for the world to address “global warming” with a single voice."

Echoing this sentiment was General Lord Guthrie, director of N.M. Rothschild & Sons, member of the House of Lords and former chief of the Defense Staff in London, who urged the Trilateral power-brokers to "Address the global climate crisis with a single voice, and impose rules that apply worldwide."

Doesn't matter. 340 acres around me that grew no corn, wheat or oats proves to me otherwise as does the falling yeild of 30% over ten years has final snapped. I grew nothing last year, all dead by July. I don't have to BELIEVE in that. I just have to look at a dead field and an empty wallet. So you can politely go fuck yourself on that FACT.

The POT growers...the fine purveyor of a WEED grew nothing. A weed not growing...what does that tell you? In turn in our area that meant the guy the cops rent the plane from to find the crops didn't fly as often, so his plane is up forsale because energy prices are too high and he didn't have enough business. In turn that laid off two cops (good people) that would usually be needed to help with the varible fines and processing that is levied from capturing these guys.

Growing a plant, any plant requires a lot of water and energy. Since water was scarce and energy is expensive. Here's my prediction. You are going to miss a couple of meals, that's if anyone cares enough to ship some your direction and it's available and moving to an area with food will be a challenge for most of you because energy is expensive.

I don't understand why people don't believe the government when it talks an economy, but when it comes to food you guys will choke yourselves on any cock offered. Seriously think these people have your best interests at heart in any matter anymore. We live in a world of paper silve, gold and wheat.

Read about the Dust Bowl... Longterm cyclical droughts are actually the norm, especially in the central US. The last (relatively wet) 50 years are not. There are a lot of factors which led to this bubble, many of them not so obvious.

Farming is difficult. The physical demands are nothing compared to the mental mind-fuck. That's why people left farming for easy jobs. Sorry about your luck though.

Sort of. The valley flys in Jamacians and Mexicans to help as farm hands during the summer. I like to think of it as the time the food and music improves during the year. (local beer, jamacian jerk chicken bbq and proper mexican refried beans with churros = heaven)

If you can afford the equipment. For around a 200k you can get a good combine used (baring fixing and replacement). New for about half a million for a decent mid range one. The loan rates for them are good this year though @ 12% from John Deer versus the Japanese, European, Russian and Chinese crap.

In farm equipment, only one country knows how to make it well. The USA. Everything else won't last five years. So if considering equipment, pay the premium for US made equipment. Couple of reasons.

The warranties are rock solid.

The after market parts are quality and reasonably priced (barings and struts mainly).

The ROI is measured in decades if you treat your equipment well.

Lots of engineering guys in basements work on products to make them better because they are built to be repaired in a field versus forklifted to a dealer.

Used good equipment can cost nearly as much as new imports, there's a reason for that. You will get your money out of it.

I'm not in the dust bowl. I'm in Ontario. Provider of a lion's share of world apple, corn, cheap grapes, peaches, spring plum and winter wheat production.

We are the back up to the dust bowl and the prairies because that sort of thing hasn't ever happened since 1830. It is something that just does not happen. Ever. Because of our seasons the land management is handled differently to avoid what the Feds in the USA did during 1930's.

Nothing to be done about it now but find new things to grow. Nearly a decade of attempting to get corn and wheat to grow to scale of the land and declining yields. Just means people will have to learn new recipes if they want to eat something and be capable of identifying food when presented. A for Apple will be replaced by A for Albatross.

Even if the Earth is warming and humans are the main culprit, what the hell are we gonna do about? No practical solutions exist, which DO NOT include massive depopulation. So unless you can sell that politically, all you're gonna due is give more of your money to government to enact ridiculous "solutions" which achieve nothing but more hardship. The best thing we can do is adapt and hope new technologies save us later down the road. Or we can all pray for a volcanic eruption which is gonna happen sooner or later anyhow.

I like to think of it as mother nature saying enough is enough, she'll groom the human herd back a bit until we smarten up. This is part of survival of the fittest.

I haven't cried as the loss of habitats for animals. I doubt most people will concern themselves with the human race going to more 'equitable' levels by the natural process of culling an oversized herd of humans. In fact I bet a beer people won't even notice until the process starts to happen in their area of the world. If it happens, it happens and there is nothing to be done about it except what you bring yourself. Technology only goes so far when applied against a massive amount of mouths to feed and declining energy quality.

Think of it this way. If we lost 90% of the human race tomorrow what would happen?

First thing is gas would get cheap again.

Most of all the renewable infrastructure could actually provide the remaining 10% with their FULL energy needs with extra.

Farming could be brought back to a proper scale along with the resource requirements.

Food in storage would last longer, not indefinitely, but it's breathing room to allow for proper prioritization of resource distribution.

Finished products like lumber, nails, bolts, copper wire, thick heavy guage steel would be available in un-needed factories and infrastructure.

These don't seem like bad things. It's just getting the human race under the 500 million mark and keeping it that way.

Human sourced global warming debates are irrelevant, the only thing that matters is yield. You can't bullshit yield. Yield was fucked for a lot of crops last year. It's probably going to be fucked again this summer. Blame it on whatever the fuck you want, but that's the reality.

Wrong! Believing or not believing is irrelevant and is nothing but a fallacy. ACCEPTANCE of EVIDENCE and comprehension of evidence is what brings us closer to a truth. Once again to spout off about what you think or what you believe devoid of examining the evidence for yourself, and also comprehending the evidence leaves you as another American idiot. Opinions are not science, assessment and measuring of actual phenomenon is science. Not having any relevant background to investigate the science is a great impediment to discovering any functioning phenomenon especially of the natural world. That is why education is important especially in the sciences since we cannot have lawyers, politicians, and frigging philosophers making decisions or voicing their opinions on matters they have no comprehension of.

It is not just 'assessment' or 'measuring', it is objectivity, transparency, veracity and peer review.

All of which appears to be sadly lacking in the AGW-Global Warming-Climate Change crowd.

What is occurring now is a repeat of this unfortunate incident:

"Muller was awarded the 1946 Nobel Prize in medicine for his discovery that X-rays induce genetic mutations. This helped him call attention to his long-time concern over the dangers of atomic testing. Muller's intentions were good, Calabrese points out, but his decision not to mention key scientific evidence against his position has had a far-reaching impact on our approach to regulating radiation and chemical exposure."

When you get right down to it, it is a conlict of belief systems: conservative-libertarian based vs liberal based.

A conflict in which liberals have a greater emotional investment in protecting what provided their ancestors' livelihood - nature, while conservatives/libertarians support what brought about the modern world - technology.

When the AGWers make threats to the non-believers, you can see that their beliefs are tantamount to a religion. They tried removing past warm periods and fabricated Mann's Hockey Stick. They rely mostly on scare tactics instead proof, of which they have none, but still promote their beliefs as the gospel truth.

They are thinking emotionally, not objectively, just as if someone's religious beliefs were being attacked. If they were thinking objectively, they would have noticed the decline in temperature after 1998 and been more open to other opinions. But no.

Why didn't you question the lying and secrecy, they go along nicely with their intolerance - all emotionalism.

No, the first problem is that crops can fail for an infinite number of reasons, and he is too much of a shill to realize how stupid he sounds by implying otherwise. The second problem is that in typical alarmist fashion, his proposed solution is barbaric and does not even pretend to be just, equitable, or fair, let alone ethical.

Exactly. My equipment doesn't run without fuel. The guys that come in from Mexico and Jamacia to help with the season fly here, need planes and fuel. And I've noticed a lack of oil rigs pumping crude anywhere.

All that food comes from one source, cheap energy. No cheap energy = no cheap food. no cheap food = no cheap people.

And to you and yours. Fear is a bad place to be when things are messy, planning on moving to other options is a better strategy. Worst place to be is ignorance. It's happening now everywhere. Some deluded belief that the universe is here to provide with no effort.

Now people are like frogs being slowly boiled. People dismiss size reduction on food packaging as part of the 'green' movement when the obvious answer is there just isn't so much of it available at greater cost for too many.

I know it's a tired yarn, but if people aren't willing to hedge their own lives with a bit of wiggle room for the bad times. No amount of discussion that I would have with them would ever change their minds.

There is a difference between wanting to provide for yourself and wanting everyone else to be destitute. People think the prepared are nutty because of imbeciles like CPL who wear their personal beliefs on their sleeves and revel in the smugness of being self-righteous, aloud, for all to hear. For example, by calling for everyone who doesn't agree with him to starve to death. Can you spell h-o-l-o-d-o-m-o-r? Stalin would be proud.

If we have something in common like goods or an agreed upon currency, then we have business. Otherwise who are you to me? Nobody. To my family and community, they are people that have direct influence on my daily life. My responsibility is to that. To the needs and welfare of those in the immediate area because if something is going to change anywhere it starts around your own house.

Example:

Problem: Highway and surrounding environment is a pigsty because half of NYC drive over the border to look at leaves.

Rural answer: Put up signs, increase the amount of garbage cans, organise pick up scheduels and organise voluenteers to pick up crap from the side of the road.

Unexpected outcome: Dump is undersized because the population in cars dumping garbage is twice as fast as the local community that lives there.

Problem: Dump is undersized and surrounded by good farmland. Building a new dump isn't possible with funds in a small rural Canadian community plus everyone is broke because nothing grew.

Rural Answer: Traffic cops.

Outcome: Country coffers are filled partially, and most of the ticket go to the courts to process and return half of the recipt value.

Unexpected outcome: Cannot use the current roster anymore than possible because they still have community work they need to do. When it's the first nice week in spring, you can find lots of voluenteers to sit with a radar gun. But it's winter and weather is shit out, everyone is broke and more household problems are being reported yet ignored on a provincial level.

Problem: Not enough man power for local police station...

I would go on, but I hope you understand that everything around you doesn't happen by accident. In a rural community of people working together, when things that happen by accident are usually not good things. So, no, I don't give a shit if you starve. I just don't have anything invested with you. The fact you've got ten fingers and ten toes isn't enough for me to fight your battle. For family and friends, sure I'll tear it up. For you, I'll sell tickets and start a youtube channel.

I see you have four compadres who cannot read a map. Who would they raid living in Greenland, they were farming fishing outposts not raiding centers that was Northern Europe, from Greenland that is a 2800+ mile trip to raid.. That is a lot of rowing.

The Vikings were exlporers as well. I don't think Greenland was much colder than their prior homeland. They clearly didn't only intend to raid when they went on exploration voyages.

The Polynesians "sailed" much smaller vessels, without sails, to Hawaii and Easter Island FFS!!! Go take a look at a map of Easter Island and you'll have better appreciation for Polynesians and see that the Vikings visit to Greenland wasn't such a great sailing accomplishment.

Ireland. Scotland. France, Minsk, entire coastline of the Fjords....red/blonde hair doesn't just magically appear. Oh yeah...Canada. You can visit the 1000 year old viking village in Newfoundland (L'Anse aux Meadows).

The Viking secret weapon for long ocean travels is pickled cabbage (sauerkraut) so they didn't die of scurvy on route to where ever. Mainland Europeans didn't figure it out until around the 1200's weirdly.

So you were saying about the limited ability of Vikings to travel the world and have stories written about them by ancient Greeks?

Demetrius of Pharos was a Greek sea pirate that used to tangle with them all the time (200 AD, 2200 years ago) and was eventually co-opted by them. Eventually that piece of history turned into Latvia (another story altogether). Black hair and red beards. Genetic markers show where the vikings have been. I'm sure if some grad student combed the west coast of Africa there would be a couple of viking villages just like Canada.

lol. Got it on the wrong side of the line of time in my head again. BC/AD.

Anycase the Greek pirate king was an interesting guy. There are other points in reference to Platonic timeframes to giants that raided and plundered Roman outposts on shore which are slightly older.

Vikings in a swift long boat full of big guys with Maces and Axes that are built to row thousands of miles of ocean in all weather. They could dance around European ships that needed that forward ram to skuttle a boat. Vikings would drop the sail to cut speed, pull oars and pull up behind. For shoreline targets, night raids, at least that's the assumption.

It was the equivalent (in that time frame) to a battle cruiser rolling up to shore. They were pretty bad ass for the time frame sailors sailed the seas.

Based on what I've read, the Viking settlers who migrated to Greenland encountered the Inuit migrating from the west at the same time their crops began to fail.

The Vikings refused to adapt. The Inuit were willing to show the European Norsemen how they survived in that harsh environment. The Norse, although surrounded by some of the richest fishing waters in the world, wouldn't learn to fish. They insisted on trying to grow their traditional crops and raising livestock.

Refusing to adapt to their changing environment was why the Norse died out in Greenland.

I wasn't aware that they had records about pluto and jupiter from the 19th century...perhaps Jules Verne was of assistance?

Extrapolating forward from 10 years of data is cute, but not science in the least; the ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere, reflectometry changes which concretely demonstrate the increased green-house effect, monotonically warming oceans etc aren't really explained all that well by solar changes alone.

I hope the Koch Bros paid you well; kudos on coming up with some bullshit that I at least hadn't heard before.

It's total politically driven pseudo science. Want to see the face of the NWO, look at the people behind the global warming scam. Not the useful idiots who believe it religiously, but the puppet masters behind it.

You have to be kidding right?!! Yep those people there are just chock full of scientists who have literally focused on climate science and practiced due diligence in scientific assessment. Please stop being an idiot.

I guessed you were an atheist "all scientifically, religiously and politically" before you even told me. That's why your "belief" in global warming has a religious zealotry that transcend all reason and critical thinking. But you don't see that.

"97% of real scientists that study the climate appear to think otherwise"

key word is appear. Your flat earther logic tells you that anyone who didn't have the balls to sign the petion (many for fear of losing grant money or losing their job in a leftist college) must therefore believe in global warming?

This isn't about left and right, this is about control over narrative. The main issue with the battle for control is that real sceptical scientific inquiry is destroyed to feed agenda drivin news bites.

here's something i was reading that might explain the weird weather. It's common knowledge the sun has been having an abnormal amount of solar flares lately altho if you think climatechange comes from anything besides carbon emissions then you're a conspiracy theorist, but here's a possible explanation for why the sun is acting strangely lately, an interesting New Age theory about our planet & entire solar system is passing thru a Photon Belt that is energizing the sun & earth to become more seismically active:

The following scientific data revealed by Alexei Dmitriev further supports NASA's original 2012 solar storm warning issued back in March of 2006.

Astrophysicist Alexei Dmitriev says that both Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 satellites reveal that our sun, as well as our entire solar system, is now moving into an interstellar energy cloud. Opher, a NASA Heliophysics Guest Investigator from George Mason University says this interstellar energy cloud is turbulent. Dmitriev explains that this cloud of energy is exciting the atmospheres of our planets and especially our sun. As this interstellar energy cloud continues to excite/charge the sun, it causes the sun to become more active, resulting in greater output from the sun. IE: Bigger and more frequent solar storms and CME's resulting in the Carrington effect. This interstellar cloud of electrical energy is also absorbed by the Earth, and scientist have found that it results in more earth quakes, all while dramatically effecting our weather here on earth.

On July 14, 2010 we learned that our sun is passing through an interstellar energy cloud which excites/energizes the sun. NASA, along with The National Academy of Science and other world renowned scientist are so concerned about this up and coming solar maximum in late 2012, that way back in March 10, 2006 NASA issued a solar storm warning (in writing) for 2012. What NASA omitted in their 2006 solar storm warning is what prompted NASA in the first place to issue a 2012 solar storm warning four years in advance? Then in 2010, NASA again warns the general population of a pending solar storm, telling the population to get ready for a once in a lifetime solar storm.

I do not claim to be an astrophyscist, so ok fine it's technically a space probe b/c its not orbiting anything, give me a break w/ the semantics- it not necessary to 'be an astrophysicist' in order to question the claim of why are we getting climate change, if we do not believe in carbon emissions as the culprit?

I am also interested in the news from the Voyagers and have been following it for some time. It is important to realize that the "cloud" is incredibly sparse. At a certain point, the pressure from the solar wind becomes weak enough that it is overcome by extrasolar forces such as this "cloud".

Interesting is that the heliosphere does not seem to be a clear "bubble" of solar wind such as the earth's magnetosphere. There may be intrusions of the matter at different locations farther into the solar system. How and to what extent this cloud affects the sun is an absolutely fascinating question, but I think incredibly difficult to answer. I have not studied the findings of the scientists you mentioned, but think they are probably extrapolating rather severely.